What Did Sal DiCiccio Really Tell Gary Verburg? We Don't Have the Answer

Footage from Channel 12's report -- a letter that raises more questions than it answers.

​City Attorney Gary Verburg was asked by Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio whether his "past business relationship" with the Gila River Indian community affected his participation on the Loop 202 issue.

But did DiCiccio bother to tell Verburg that the relationship was also, well, present? Damned if we know. We can't get Verburg to explain the details.

In this week's print edition, New Times looks into the controversy surrounding the demotion of the city of Phoenix's acting public-information director, David J. Ramirez. But make sure you don't miss the second half of the column -- a follow-up to the questions we're raising about Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio.

He's trotted out City Attorney Verburg to tell the Arizona Republic that his behavior is a-okay -- but, as we report this week, it appears he's not letting Verburg take questions from New Times about the matter. Verburg has declined to answer our questions, citing "attorney/client privilege," even as DiCiccio has apparently waived that privilege for more sympathetic media outlets.

Yep, that seems a little unfair to us, too. What did DiCiccio disclose, and when did he disclose it? So far no one at Phoenix City Hall has coughed up the public records we've requested. And Verburg says he can't talk.

Suffice to say, if DiCiccio thought that producing his letter to Verburg to both Channel 12 and the the Republic would quell the controversy over his participation on the freeway issue, he's really, really wrong. DiCiccio's opponent, Dana Marie Kennedy, has attempted to make hay with the freeway issue, holding a press conference to criticize his alleged conflict of interest.

Kennedy has linked to the Channel 12 report stemming from her press conference here. And that's what got our attention. We suggest pausing it on the letter that Councilman DiCiccio waves at the camera: As you'll see, the letter doesn't exactly disclose the real facts about DiCiccio's business interests.

Now, maybe they went over all that in conversation. But if that's the case, why not let Verburg take our questions?